Tired of having your life ran by people who live 1000 miles away and don't have to deal with the consequences for their decisions?

For political neophytes, see a sports metaphor to see where we are at. For those who want to get straight to practical solutions, read on.

What is it?

The Texas Sovereignty Act is a state level legislative framework that provides a streamlined approach for the Texas legislature to formally declare that specific acts of the federal government are unconstitutional. It creates a standing legislative committee to review federal actions for constitutionality. The full legislature votes on declaring unconstitutional acts and the governor reviews. Federal actions subject to Texas review are legislation, regulations, executive orders, federal judicial orders or decisions, and treaty enforcement.

Once an act is declared unconstitutional, law enforcement can arrest and prosecute federal agents who attempt enforcement action under the color of declared unconstitutional acts under the Texas penal code, including explicitly, the Texas Official Oppression Act (Texas Penal Code 39.03). While maintaining the ability of local district and county attorneys to prosecute, the attorney general is also given prosecutorial power to prosecute federal agents if a federal act has been declared unconstitutional.

Details

Explicitly states that this bill does not prohibit a public officer who has take the oath from interposing to stop acts of the federal government which in the officer's best understanding and judgment, violate the Constitution.
Includes canons of construction guiding the analysis of the constitutionality of federal acts. The canons use reliance on the text and structure of the Constitution and in cases of ambiguity, on sources that evidence original intent.
Allows Texas citizens to seek an opinion about the constitutionality of a federal action in a Texas court.

Rationale

Our state and nation are dying because the federal government is violating the Constitution every day in many ways -- and no one is stopping them. The feds will never limit their own power. Texans must honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, and stop federal actions in Texas that violates the Constitution. This requires the exercise of independent judgment about constitutional meaning, rejecting the notion that the federal judiciary is the sole or final arbiter of constitutional meaning.

This approach relies completely on Texans and Texas officials to secure the liberty of Texans, and can be implemented immediately. No relying upon, or waiting for other states to secure our liberty. See here for the PDF version of this section. Contact information is below and inside the PDF.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do you mean unConstitutional?

As was designed, the federal government dealt with matters OUTSIDE the states. It was not meant to act INSIDE of the states. The federal government now regularly intrudes on issues of state and personal sovereignty, and our culture often anyone who challenges, as having an extreme position. The problem may be one of education.

The term, constitutional, is usually interpreted to mean whatever the federal supreme Court says it means, but the problem is over time, it has gradually moved from interpreting the federal scope as a limited set of powers, to mean virtually anything - undoing the basic design of the constitution, all the while saying it is constitutional.

Imagine if you had a landlord that you rented a house from who had the ability to redefine the meaning of words in the contract at his discretion, without your involvement. That pretty much sums the problem up. The concept is well covered in books such as Animal Farm.

The idea behind the supreme Court itself was to have an independent judiciary, but there has been judicial activism which frustrates members of the Left and the Right alike. Those on the Left may say - if we could just get one more judge, and those on the Right may say, we are only one judge away from total collapse of the Republic. Both sides may make a point, but there is a larger point that seems to be missed.

Even a casual review of documentation around the founding of the Constitution would reveal the federal government was to have a LIMITED set of powers such as going to war, delivering the mail, settling disputes between states, interacting with other countries, etc. That is, those areas of common interest and perspective were effectively nationalized, and those that would require local control or interest were left to the states or the people.

The constitution was understood at the time to mean this limited set of powers, but there was still what was considered loose language in it, by many. There was much concern that some of the loose language would be abused, as expressed by the likes of Patrick Henry and in the various ratifying debates. Ultimately such concerns were acknowledged by the amending of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights to further emphasize the limited role that the federal government had.

Ultimately, the original concerns have now been validated by the current state of affairs, which is explained further on in this article.

What changed?

In a nutshell, around the turn of the 20th century, judges began broadly interpreting clauses from their original strict construction (limited power) to mean virtually anything. Examples include the interstate commerce clause, treaties, the general welfare clause, and others. It also includes the 14th amendment, which was meant to keep states honest with respect to their treatment of former slaves, but has since been used as a shoehorn for all sorts of federal usurpation.

The federal government is 180 degrees from where it started and many of the citizens happily go along with it because ... supreme Court says so! The whole system no longer follows its own rules and is therefore, corrupt! For a more detailed discussion of the corruption process go read the Constitution for the Common Man. Don't take my word for it though, the Governor of Texas commissioned a study and arrived at similar findings, though he suggests a different solution. The link to the study is further on in this article. You could also think about this quote from founding father, Thomas Jefferson:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Diversity in Government results in Better Choices for You the Citizen!?

My son likes to say that Home Depot and Lowe's are enemies. The result of their competition is lower prices AND better quality for you, the consumer. This is how the State governments were to compete - resulting in better deals for the citizens.

Now, imagine if Lowe's and Home Depot got together (or any other one of your favorite stores) to work together. They could raise prices and the consumer would have no choice to pay them. This is what happens when the federal government takes on roles destined for the states or the people, that is, it results in LESS choices and LESS freedom (long term).

As with the free market, if another competitor arose, making both Home Depot and Lowe's accountable to lower prices and better quality offers by other vendors, then the state governments would eventually be forced to react due to a loss in revenue. Some states may begin to pass more draconian measures, which then results in more citizenry fleeing the state in favor of better opportunities.

Expand the notion out further - a myriad of stores could compete - offering a wide range of products and services. Some may prefer to shop at Walmart, but I love to shop at Andy's hardware, a small mom and pop shop, when I can. That is the AMAZING power of CHOICE! Apply the same concept to the states.

States rights while ordinarily painted in a negative light due to past abuses, are like the thriving craft beer industry when used PROPERLY.

The whole idea behind the Constitution was a division of power, ultimately, to keep the government so busy fighting itself that it didn't have time to turn towards oppressing the citizen. Even with the divisions as they were and are, the federal government has been gradually applying one-size-fits-all solutions to the country.

Sometimes when our issue wins, we celebrate! But when our issue loses, well. Again, people have a basic right to self-governance.

The point is lost on most that the supreme Court was not meant to have this kind of power, that we were not supposed to be 1 supreme court justice away from whatever looming disaster each side tends to sound the alarm over. By uniting on things like common defence and delivering the mail, things where it makes sense, we can leave the remaining items to be determined on a by state or by locale basis - giving people lots of diversity in their freedoms.

Okay, fine, what is so bad about the current state of affairs, even with all the corruption?

There are often vast differences in the way people think in different regions or sections of the country. Due to homogenization and television, this is not always the case, but there are still plenty of differences. For example, in Texas, many of us like guns and are generally in favor of less regulation. The more liberal states like New York and California, perhaps owing to their population centers, like to impose much stricter gun controls. That's one area, and time permitting I will add more. The fundamental design was to leave most of the decisions to the state or the people, but only delegate matters of common interest to the federal government. This means that matters over religion, speech, guns, privacy, and so forth are up to the states or the people.

Regional differences aside, the real point is WHY have a set of rules for the government, called the Constitution, if it is going to ignore them? Why not let it do whatever it wants and just give all of your money to it?

But wait, wasn't this settled during the Civil War?

The states have had a long history of challenging the feds and winning in some cases, and backing down in other cases. The civil war was, in part, prompted by north ignoring federal laws (e.g., refusing the fugitive slave act), and the south getting tired of it. Nullification has already been used successfully hundreds of times. The Civil War example is the extremely rare exception in this case, and there were many other factors at play there. When states nullified federal marijuana laws, did it lead to Civil War? When several States nullified the Real ID Act of 2005, did it lead to Civil War? When a few States nullified Federal Regulations on wolves, did it lead to Civil War?

Hundreds of more examples can be given. These are just a few recent ones. (ht: R. Brown).

In addition, Americans are generally unaware of the usurpations of power by Abraham Lincoln. Basically, he said: Oh, shoot, the country is breaking up, well, I'll fix it with cannon fire and almost a million dead! That's one way to spread the message of liberty! When other governments from that period ended slavery, they basically paid off the slave owners, instead of resorting to cannon fire.

Oh, but he freed the slaves? Fair enough, but bear in mind - freeing the slaves was politically expedient at the time. There are plenty of quotes to support this position with even a casual google search. Time permitting, more quotes and support for this position will be added.

What are the basic challenges of restoring the principles behind the Constitution?

Look - this train is already in motion. Millions of people's lives are affected by it, indeed almost the whole world feels the impact of our elections. So we have to repair the train - while it is moving.

What differentiates this approach from other approaches to restoring the Constitution?

There are several basic approaches to repairing the proverbial train while it is in motion:

Voting Better;
Suing in Federal Court;
Constitutional Convention; and
some have even proposed Secession.

Each approach is compared below:

Voting Better

The bottom line is that on the campaign trail there is often a stark contrast between the two major political parties, but once they reach office, everything changes and the good people we elected can very quickly become corrupted by the system they are placed into. A quick read of any politician's Facebook feed can demonstrate how divided the public is, in general. While we should continue to replace incumbents who have become corrupted, this not does not take away from other efforts.

Suing in Federal Court

I've never lost a game while I was the score keeper! This approach could be compared to politely asking the engineer of the train to slow down because the train is going too fast and it might wake your baby. Better analogy, this is like politely asking the engineer of the train to slow down when he has fallen asleep on the controls, the speed is increasing, and there is a sharp turn ahead.

Here's the suing-the-federal-government-in-federal-court scoreboard:

Federal government: 1000000, States: 2

Well, some cases have been won, but several key cases lost. See here for some examples and here.

For the more liberal mindsets, think about the invasions of privacy and the violations on freedom that the drug war has had.

For a more conservative perspective, Additional examples follow (borrowed from another article):

The people of Arizona voted English as their official language, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Prop. 106, March 3, 1997)
The people of Arkansas passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
The people of California voted to stop state-funded taxpayer services to illegal aliens, but federal judges overruled. (Prop. 187, Nov. 20, 1995)
The people of Colorado voted not to give special rights to homosexuals, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct. Romer v Evans, 1992)
The people of Missouri defeated a tax increase, but federal judges overruled. (8th Circuit, Missouri v Jenkins, Apr. 18, 1990)
The people of Missouri limited contributions to State candidates, but a federal judge overruled. (8th Circuit, Shrink Pac v Nixon, Jan. 24, 2000)
The people of Missouri passed “A Woman’s Right to Know.” Governor Bob Holden vetoed it. Legislators overrode his veto, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, Sept. 11, 2000)
The people of Nebraska passed a Marriage Amendment with 70 percent of the vote, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion, May 12, 2005)
The people of New York voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (2nd Circuit, April 2, 1996)
The people of Washington voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, March 6, 1996)
The people of Washington passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
The people of Montana voted by an overwhelming 74 percent to define a marriage as between one man and one woman, but federal judge Brian Morris overruled. (Nov. 19, 2014) Republican Rep. Steve *Daines stated an “unelected federal judge” had ignored Montanans’ wishes. (Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2014)

Constitutional Convention (con-con) and/or Convention of States

This approach could be compared to tearing down the train's engine and rebuilding it, while it is in motion! I'm not saying there's not some value to this approach. Even the threat of this may force Congress to start to behave, but there are also a number of issues with the con-con and CoS approaches that people aren't generally aware. Basically, Congress would still control the agenda. Further, think of what happened when a couple hundred years ago, the politicians went in to amend the existing articles of confederation, and out popped the Constitution!

Perhaps the first amendment might be: The Existing Constitution is hereby scrapped, anyone wearing pink shoes must die, and everyone shall pay more taxes! Perhaps not, but either way the current Congress would control the agenda and there is a risk of basically making things worse than they already are.

Tests of this approach have indicated that it may go favorably towards reeling in federal control, but then there are also examples where governors have proposed rules that would STRENGTHEN the federal government and contribute to further centralization of power.

Further, while there is momentum, it may still take 50 years.

Secession

This approach could be compared to each car in the train having its own engine, unhooking a car in the train, catching a split in the train tracks, and heading separate ways. It's possible, after all, look at Brexit, but there are many challenges and then there's the question of whether it is worth it to disconnect from arguably the world's most powerful military?

In the state of Texas, while there is some appetite for secession, but by and large, there is limited support for this option. It may yet be needed, but let's first, at the MINIMUM, attempt to enforce the Constitution we already have! With talk of secession, while it could be done through peaceful referendum, there could be a risk of much bloodshed. Let's avoid that path, unless completely cornered?

Constitutional Enforcement

Which brings us back to enforcing the Constitution we already have. This approach can be compared to going up to the train engineer coming back to your car and telling your baby to wake up, and you telling him to get out and leave your kid alone!

If Federal officials get out of line, then state level official have the power to challenge - to stand up and do their jobs! This act merely emphasizes and educates them on the power they already have. It gives them a place to "hang their hat" and avoids piece-mealing the process of pushing back on the feds, instead, allowing for independent judgment.

What about my Social Security or other non negotiables?

Let's tackle this one-at-a-time. Each federal program has its own criteria for funding and when to use the various federal funds as a carrot stick or beating stick against states unwilling to go along. Examples? For years, Louisiana would not play ball with the feds on the age for alcohol and therefore they may have had some impact on their interstate highway funding. But, let's take a step back - the feds take the money from the citizens of the states via the income tax, and then refuse to to provide funding if the citizens of a state would prefer self-government on some issues?

Either way funding is on a per program basis, so no one is coming for your social security check any time soon.

Here is an example for highway funding:

"The law, which went into effect July 1, increased the allowable blood alcohol content for underage drivers from .02 to .08, and it also increased the penalties. Federal law requires states to have blood alcohol limits of .02 for drivers under 21. Since the new law isn’t in compliance with federal guidelines, the state could lose $60 million in federal highway funding."

Source: dui-law-may-cost-tennessee-highway-funding

What else could go wrong?

What could go wrong if we enforce the Constitution we already have? Ultimately, in the extreme, it could result in a state level official arresting a federal official and the resulting fall out. Hopefully, it is just repudiation of unconstitutional federal acts. More likely, as has been the case for the marijuana law reforms occurring throughout the United States, the feds will blink when they have no firm ground to stand on. If they have a legitimate leg to stand on, then the state level officials will back down.

A little background is in order, first. It could be argued that the "cracks" in the Constitution did allow for expansion in civil rights in many cases. Remember when black and white people couldn't get married in Texas? It wasn't that long ago. Seems strange, right? The culture has shifted since then - and we recently elected a black president for 2 terms, so such notions are largely extinguished on the basis of "race", but there are still other areas where there appears to be some public concern and difference of opinion. While there may still be some distrust among people with different unalterable attributes (hair type, skin melanin content, eye color, nose size, moles, etc.), there is also a wide range of activities such people are able to participate in together. The Constitution was designed to allow the public at large to "vote with its feet" to reward or punish undesirable State level policies. The idea is to create a type of competition among the states for policies that work!

For example, the State of Pennsylvania made accommodations for its Amish people - not requiring them to attend school past 8th grade. Some states like to pass lots of commercial laws , which businesses tend to favor. Some states let the people do more of what they want, and other more populated states have to deal with the problems that large population centers bring.

OK, back to the question: What could go wrong is a lack of standardization. People traveling could need to be more aware of regional differences in laws. It may result in another effect - reciprocity agreements that can't easily be changed. For example, some states may not grant recognition of other state's concealed carry license until the state can include training as a core requirement of the concealed carry licensing. Once these arrangements are setup, they probably won't change easily since it would require multiple state participation in any proposed changes

The net result is in the event that a state becomes oppressive, the state would suffer economically as the people of the state move to other states. In the end it works out, because people of like mind are then drawn to one another and are only bound by issues such as ... common defence as the Constitution was designed! Wait, I might have to move? That doesn't sound fun, what is the bright side? Why still do this?

OK, fine, why still do this?

Several reasons: again, the government should follow its own rules, otherwise, what's the point in having the rules?

Some hot button items include:

Recently, Washington has pushed gun control agenda that does not represent true and actual arguments or in line with the cultural understanding in Texas.
Skipping over the Department of Education's constitutionality, another example is attempts by the federal government to assert control over the bathrooms in our local schools!

On a personal level, it affects our:

paychecks; since the federal government is like a kid in candy store spending money that we don't have
limits our ability to self-govern - coming up with solutions that work for Texans, instead of solutions dictated by every other state.

The federal government has been slowly inching its way into just about everything and has ONLY been increasing its scope with reckless financial spending and excessive regulation shows no signs of slowing. Something has to be done to stop it. As support for the foregoing, the governor of Texas commissioned a study to identify some of the areas where the federal government has expanded beyond its original scope, see: Article on Federal Usurpation by the State of Texas government See? The governor of Texas thinks something is wrong - surely that adds ... some ... weight to the cause for concern and this action, right?

A longer list of grievances includes (borrowed from some arguments used to support secession and tweaked):

Ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn? In this case, the supreme Court figured that if a farmer in one state plants wheat to feed his animals, since the farmer would not be buying wheat, this could affect prices in another state, therefore farming INSIDE the states is now subject to federal jurisdiction. In other words, if a cow in Texas farts (apologies), and someone in California breathes it, it is within the scope of the EPA. In other words, if a butterfly in Florida flaps its wings, then because it could affect the air in Texas, it is in the scope of the federal governments powers, and oh by the way, the federal government is the one who determined what is in its power. Anyone see a ... slight ... conflict of interest?

A big list of other grievances is in the text that follows, but you will need to click the Expand link on the right to access it.

Irresponsible spending. In 2005 dollars, the federal budget has increased from $2.5 trillion dollars to $3.3 trillion dollars in six years. There is no serious solution to pay this off and as more collected tax dollars are going to pay the interest, there is less money to pay for legitimate government expenses, which requires more borrowing, which increases the interest needed to pay the debt. This is unsustainable. Do we as Texans want to ride this ship down?
Redistribution of wealth. Washington continually seeks to harvest the wealth of productive individuals and re-directs it to inefficient ventures, such as the interest and many other subsidized companies. Government should not force charity giving from a producer and give to penurious individuals. Someone’s ‘needs’ should not give them a right to someone else’s resources, including talents, skills or money. This is feudal mentality, where the nobles would plunder the people through taxation for what they deemed to be best, not necessarily what is most accountable. Recently, there was an Occupy Wall Street demonstration where there were comparisons between the wealth of the top 1% to the other 99%. They should have been looking at this geographically where Washington has our tax monies and decides how it is going to be spent. They have been irresponsible with our money for too long. Are we ready to take our money back, as we are the rightful earners of it?
Increase in taxes due to the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). This includes, but not limited to excise tax on uninsured individuals, tax on HSA distributions, fees on health plans, and taxes on medical devices. This has put undue hardship on many individuals and businesses. Did they consider other means of financing healthcare? What about increasing the supply by increasing education or removing some regulations? This was bad legislation that was passed in the middle of the night by one party. It was not even debated on, yet impacted everyone in the United States. Are these the responsible actions of a Republic that was established in 1776?
Over regulation in the affairs of the people’s financial business (Dodd-Frank Act). This act has created an undue burden upon any individual that have applied for a loan and it has created numerous paperwork requirements that need multiple submissions – once when the loan is submitted and then again before the purchase of the property. We need free markets and free enterprise.
Irresponsible Use of Fiat Currency. The Federal Reserve has increased the money supply in an attempt to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing at the expense of responsible savers and has put the honest work and representation of a person’s productivity at risk through these reckless policies. Again, the federal government is picking winners and losers in the economy. In the low interest rate environment that is almost a decade long now, this has favored debtors over savers/retirees.
As some states, such as California and New York, have been financially reckless, they will eventually look to the federal government to bail them out which will pull resources from financially responsible states through taxation, such as Texas, to support inefficient bureaucracy and policies.
Political environment in Washington has put excessive burden on the states without consulting with the states. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are such examples. Resettling of refugees and unescorted minors of immigrants is another. More legislation is passed through backroom deals and not debated in the public.
Our representatives have been reckless in their legislation and have taken our rights and our powers from us through laws and taxation. We will not tolerate their careless attitude any longer. We are taking back our money, our rights and our Republic! We do not seek the overthrow of any political party or destruction of the United States, only that Texas be able to settle its own issues that are in line with our resources, values and morals.

What will happen with the inevitable conflict of Federal vs. State 'interpretations' of the Constitution?

First, for the most part, when state officials do their job and challenge on the basis of powers that truly ARE in the scope of the state and not the feds, then the feds usually blink. There are cases where this has not happened such with Alabama and the civil rights activities that occurred their in the 60s. But, the 14th amendment did deal with equal protection, so the feds had a valid perspective.

Returning to the train engineer metaphor discussed earlier in this article, if you told the engineer of the train to slow the train down because it was waking your baby, you would be in error, but if he began concerning himself with all the activities inside the train cars including your baby's sleep schedule, you would be well within your rights to push back and duty bound to do so!

Further, you would want to do so in a manner that requires the least amount of force, but provides the most gain. Perhaps a picture of a hydraulic jack is in order, to illustrate the point.

Ultimately, It will depend on the political will of the people of the State of Texas.

The way this act is designed, "The case may be removed to Federal court, but the prisoner will not be.", but it all depends on state officials doing their job and challenging federal officials. Will they? Will you? Unfortunately, in many portions of our culture, the Constitution itself has been made a taboo subject.

Who has expressed positive support for this Act already?

Rep Matt Krause - In response to the question: "Are you with me on this?... Our Texas Sovereignty Bill, that I commit to you that I will be involved in with [Texas State Representative] Cecil [Bell], we and many other members of the House. But when we begin making an outcry in the House, we've got to have people out here who are also making an outcry, otherwise it will be for naught. Will you work with us on this?... God bless the United States and God bless the Great State of Texas. " (Texas State Representative Mark Keough 12-8-16)
Rep Bell has supposedly strengthened the bill and got it filed.
The Bill made it out of committee, but died in calendars this year. Keep pushing!

Where could it get jammed up in the legislative process?

Supporting the Act in Principle to appease constituents, but making sure it never sees the light of day on the legislative calendar. Old tricks are the best!
Some assert that Speaker Strauss could be an impediment.
Some assert that even the governor could be an impediment.

OK, I'm on board, how can I help?

Try to understand the rationale. Go to the Texas Constitutional Enforcement group on FB and ask the hard questions that you will be asked.
Get the phone numbers to your local reps and to your senators and CALL them. Here you go: who represents me web site
Take note: if you're not connected, it helps to find someone who has connections and who can help you. Have an uncle in the oil biz maybe? Rich cousin? etc. Do you know people in the various political parties? Find that guy that is always posting message on FB and talk to him to see if he has connections.

This page is intended to be a backup location for files and questions pertaining to the Texas Sovereignty Act, as discussed in the Texas Constitutional Enforcement Facebook group and an interpretation of the bill. This article is one person's view of the act, written up for newbies and political activists alike. Don't let the bill's name scare you, it may very well be better named as the Texas Constitutional Balance of Powers Act - or similar. If you want more details on status, contact Tom Glass on Facebook.

Downloads

Current

Texas Sovereignty Act - HB 2338

Older Files

Credits

Tom and Kathy Glass, James Trimm, et al.

History of the Bill

Change Log

2/24/2017 - Added text from the Summary created by Tom Glass and added links to the filed bill
12/14/2016 - Added clarification on a number of points
12/13/2016 - Added graphics and reworded some points
12/9/2016 - Grammar fixes and turned the snark level setting from 90% down to about 30%
11/30/2016 - Initial draft

KSpect

Texas Sovereignty Act Discussion

Contents